THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10121. April 1, 2019.]
NID ANIMA, petitioner, vs.PROSECUTOR KATHERYN MAY PENACO-ROJAS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 1, 2019, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10121 (Nid Anima v. Prosecutor Katheryn May Penaco-Rojas). — Before Us is an administrative complaint for unethical legal practice and disbarment filed by complainant Nid Anima against respondent Prosecutor Katheryn May Penaco-Rojas for the alleged failure of respondent to furnish complainant with a copy of the Resolution issued by respondent.
Complainant alleges that on April 28, 2011, he filed with the Parañaque City Prosecutors' Office a complaint for theft and estafa against Mary Jane Alanguilan, docketed as I.S. No. XV-12-INV-11-D-00874. Prosecutor Penaco-Rojas was assigned to handle the case.
Allegedly, Anima went to see Prosecutor Penaco-Rojas sometime in July 2011 to ask about the status of his case and requested for a copy of the Resolution if one has already been issued, to which he was referred to a certain "Nesty," the Secretary of Prosecutor Penaco-Rojas. The latter told him to just wait for the copy of the resolution to be delivered to her address.
Anima advances the idea that Prosecutor Penaco-Rojas intentionally never issued a resolution for more than two (2) years since the case has been submitted for resolution. If at all, a resolution was indeed issued, Prosecutor Penaco-Rojas made sure that Anima would not receive a copy of the resolution.
In her Comment, Prosecutor Penaco-Rojas argued that the complaint filed by Anima was submitted for resolution on June 2, 2011. However, the case was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence in a Resolution dated September 22, 2011.
Further, Prosecutor Penaco-Rojas averred that once a complaint is resolved, it is immediately sent to the docket section for mailing to the parties. Subsequently, the said Resolution was mailed to complainant Anima and respondent Alanguilan at their given addresses, as evidenced by photocopies of Registry Receipt Nos. 028613/4 both dated October 4, 2011. DaIAcC
Prosecutor Penaco-Rojas posits that Anima cannot feign ignorance that he did not receive a copy of said Resolution considering that he had previously received the subpoena for preliminary investigation at his given address and appeared before her for preliminary investigation. She further maintained that she has no personal interest in the said case and for this, she has no reason to withhold said Resolution.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the instant case. He found that Prosecutor Penaco-Rojas is not administratively liable for the charges against her. However, the Commissioner noted that from the records of the case, it is only after the filing of the administrative charge when complainant was furnished with a copy of the Resolution dated September 22, 2011. The Commissioner elucidated that although the non-receipt of the Resolution by Anima was not the fault of respondent, it is high time that the prosecutors from time to time should monitor if their resolutions are already served to the parties as part of the orderly administration of justice. Hence, the Commissioner recommended that respondent be admonished to be more careful in the discharge of her functions.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) Board of Governors issued a Resolution dismissing the case for lack of merit. It resolved to adopt the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner to dismiss the complaint.
After a careful review of the records of the case, We resolve to dismiss the instant administrative case against Prosecutor Katheryn May Penaco-Rojas for lack of jurisdiction.
In a number of cases, the Court has defined the line between the accountability of government lawyers as members of the bar and as public officials. In Trovela v. Robles, 1 the Court has held that the IBP has no jurisdiction to investigate government lawyers charged with administrative offense in the exercise of their official duties and functions. The Court further expounded that the authority to discipline government lawyers is with the Secretary of Justice as their superior. Moreover, the Office of the Ombudsman is clothed with disciplinary jurisdiction over government lawyers as public officials, pursuant to Section 15, paragraph 1, of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989). Thus, the filing of the administrative complaint for disbarment should be filed with the Office of the Ombudsman.
As aptly found by the IBP Investigating Commissioner, the charges against the respondent involved her functions as a prosecutor. Considering that the alleged failure to furnish a copy of the resolution to complainant by respondent is an exercise of official function as contemplated under the law, it follows that the act complained of is within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the instant administrative case against Prosecutor Katheryn May Penaco-Rojas for lack of jurisdiction. TAacHE
SO ORDERED." (Hernando, J., on leave.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. A.C. No. 11550, June 4, 2018.